Interesting. What most folks don't understand is that the State Department in the form of the Ambassador, the direct representative of the President, who appointed him/her, is in charge of everything in the country.

Security comes in 4 parts.

- Local Government- Diplomatic Security Group. The State activity responsible for security execution, personnel security and the hiring of:- local / contractor guards- Marine Guard Force (if allowed), whose primary function is protecting the inside perimeter and buying enough time for NSA and the CIA to destroy all the classified material. They do not have a "protect the Ambassador" mission, nor a "protect the walls" mission except to the extent it is a "buy enough time for destruction" mission.

I think any other Secretary of Defense would have mentioned the President as having a role - the deciding role - in this.

Ever since he did the end run around Choom and Jarrett to order the bin Laden hit (which is what this is really about; that, and the fact that Choomie's concentration of high-profile drone hits has allowed AQ to reconstitute itself), Panetta's assumed that responsibility.

Drill Sgt: Adding to your points about the current role of military detachments assigned to the Embassies: Do not status of forces agreements determine what US forces can be deployed in sovereign countries?

Here's what I understood from this post: the SecDef says DOD will respond to requests from State for Embassy reinforcement, or assist with the two Embassy drawdowns. So, this indicates that the other Embassies stay put, and the US remains engaged "normally" in the Islamic countries in question, including Libya.

The President has indicated this, but not explicitly. It's not completely clear, but minions are explaining on the Sunday talk shows right now.

The Secretary of State actually outranks the Secretary of Defense, so Hilary can reasonably ask Leon for various types of assistance with Embassy security. Since diplomatic relations will basically continue.

But, if the US should have declared war on the governments of Libya, Egypt and maybe others, then it's absurd/outrageous that the SecDef is just assisting with Embassy security. He should flank the exercise in the straits of Hormuz with plans to invade at least Libya and Egypt, possibly others. At the behest of the President, with the consent of the Congress.

That's what I think the post meant, but the above could be completely wrong, or incomplete.

Roger J. said... Drill Sgt: Adding to your points about the current role of military detachments assigned to the Embassies: Do not status of forces agreements determine what US forces can be deployed in sovereign countries?

The Embassy arrangements are I suspect separate. SOFA would certainly cover these 'reinforcements', like FAST teams.

"And you know something is happening, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Frederson?"

But, Ann Althouse surely does know. She knows something is happening and knows what it is. Clearly this link demonstrates everything awful and terrible about Obama. Why aren't we bombing the hell out of five different entire countries at once at this point. "Hit back twice as hard" indeed.

This whole situation is filled with irony. Hillary made the famous comment about the 3 AM phone call in the primaries but she has shown herself as useless as Obama, parroting the nonsense about the video.

In Libya, we were clearly betrayed by the local "guards" who led al Qeada to the supposed safe house where the ambassador and his tiny security detail had holed up. Warnings were ignored and that goes right to Hillary.

But, Ann Althouse surely does know. She knows something is happening and knows what it is. Clearly this link demonstrates everything awful and terrible about Obama. Why aren't we bombing the hell out of five different entire countries at once at this point. "Hit back twice as hard" indeed.

Panetta's pusullanimity makes me nostalgic for the days of Darth Rumsfeld. Whatever his faults, Rumsfeld wasn't waiting around for Colin Powell to tell him what his opinions were or how best to advise the President.

PETER V. BELLA said... The State Department is like the United Nations. Totally ineffectual. It has been that way for decades.----------------If you say that, you ignore all the vital effective work both entities do. Yes, the UN has a impossible job in "waging peace" as it lacks a Military wing, and can't do anything unless 5 nations at the Security Council agree to.And State has been unfortunately politicized too much by both the Left and Right when control goes between Parties.

Anyone who has spent time overseas can see the economic, health work the UN does. And most travellers and expats are of a belief that we would have been better off investing in more government resources for State Dept vs. some of the frivolous Carter through Obama squandering of 100s of billions on less productive projects (inc Saint Ronnie in that timespan)

I am also a believer in government and taxpayers spending more on CIA, US infrastructure. Less on futile wars and the Heroes fighting those wars, less on affluent seniors getting free drugs, less on "Hero teachers and Hero TSA".

Mattie - The Secretary of State actually outranks the Secretary of Defense, so Hilary can reasonably ask Leon for various types of assistance with Embassy security. Since diplomatic relations will basically continue.

It doesn't work that way. You are confusing a rather silly sometimes Presidential Succession law sequence (Most elderly and senile member of the Party in charge in the Senate 3rd in line to succeed the President?? - with chain of Command.Panetta no more answers to Hillary than he does to Speaker Boehner, 88-year old Inouye, or Treasury Secretary Geithner.

AllieOop,It's disingenuous to claim this is anything like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is correct if there is a fire, but incorrect if there isn't a fire.

It is incorrect when there isn't an actual fire because the instinctive, natural, and unavoidable reaction to a rapidly spreading deadly situation in a crowded building would be to panic and rush for the exits, resulting in injuries among those panicking.

But yelling "fire" in a crowded football stadium isn't as bad, because there's no reason to panic.

There is something special about a crowded theater: limited exits, restricted movement, limited visibility.

The Muslims aren't injuring themselves in a panic, they are deliberately injuring other people.

And I assert that their reaction is not an instinctive, natural, an unavoidable reaction to criticizing Islam.

When I was on active duty, it was commonplace to think that the State Dept. had no respect or use for the military until they fucked up. Then we were expected to be johnny-on-the spot—which was often enough to keep us busy with no-notice recalls, alerts, and deployments. The way this is happening now indicates they don't even know they have fucked up.

In the worldview of the left, every unsuccessful nation is unsuccessful because they are victimized by successful nations. T/4, the Middle East and radical Islam are exempt from evaluation on their merits.

After all, all cultures are equal, so how could there be any other explanation?

The sound of Obama being deniably "walled-off" from any possible future embarrassment or mistakes.

The sound of the press not caring about an issue that they would've viewed as an unforgivable assault on freedom is also duly noted.

But, Ann Althouse surely does know. She knows something is happening and knows what it is. Clearly this link demonstrates everything awful and terrible about Obama. Why aren't we bombing the hell out of five different entire countries at once at this point. "Hit back twice as hard" indeed.

Why won't they just explain what the hell happened and how to avoid it?

They will not even do that.

Freedom of speech for those who would incite a Holy War!

Yeah, pretty much.

What speech should be outlawed? Should we outlaw speech offensive to Muslims? All religious people? All people?

If so --- then what good is the First Amendment?

Furious, it's disingenuous at best to say this has anything to do with enforcing Sharia Law. It's about yelling "fire"in a crowded theater.

So, when abortion doctors got shot --- they brought it on themselves by doing something so abhorrent to their murderers, right?

Why do conservatives feel this lowlife is immune to the same laws as everyone else?

Because fundamental rights specifically spelled out in the Constitution shouldn't be suspended because the government doesn't like what was done.

When the hell did the progressives decide that free speech should, basically, be done away with?

...also, can you prove that ANYBODY rioting actually watched the movie? I'm betting you cannot.

Garage. It does not. But surely you do not believe five cops were sent in the middle of the night to see if he was using a computer, a violation of parole? The pretexts for stifling speech are easy to find if that is where you want to go with your thinking. You did not, for instance, have a permit for your free movie last night did you? That is the sort of thing that can be used to knock on your door at midnight if, say, someone in power didnt like your politics. It is

Yes, Allen that's true, but why is it OK to give Al Queda more fuel to fan the flames? How many more recruits do you think they've got now after the hyping of this stupid movie?

This guy was trying to incite a uptick in violence, if not start a holy war. I don't believe he is a Coptic Christian or a Jew, not for one second, perhaps its a good idea to question him and what his motives were and who his funders really were.

. But surely you do not believe five cops were sent in the middle of the night to see if he was using a computer, a violation of parole?

They were federal probation officers who questioned him. They might have wanted to know if he uploaded that movie, which would have been a violation of his parole. It's possible Obama wanted to intimidate this guy. But I would think pissed off jihadis on his ass would be a more worrying concern to his movie making career.

You missed my point, probably on purpose. But just in case you sincerely thought I wrote in opposition to someone criticizing Obama, I'll disabuse you. If you go back and read the English words I wrote, you will see that it is a response to Ann's know-it-all tone. "Something's going on and you don't know what it is."

When in reality she doesn't know a goddamn thing about these recent events or what work our government or other governments are doing in response. It's all just a chamber of chatterers.

Know it all tone + pretense to huge inside knowledge= ridiculous.

"Why do liberal-progressives feel that this low-life religion Islam is exempt from the free speech laws that apply to every other religion?"

Set up the straw men, knock em down. You're an ace.

"Does the fact that Muslims riot and murder make their beliefs exempt from the 1st Amendment in the US?"

You live in a hysteric universe of your own making. Get out of the echo chamber.

I'm still not hearing what I want to hear from Obama, or Romney, or anyone here, for that matter.

This is the message that needs to be delivered to the rioters and anyone who sympathizes with them - note the appropriate use of dashes and semicolons:

Dear Radical Muslims:Who the Hell are you to demand respect for your religion when you show no respect whatsoever for anyone else's? If you hadn't spent the last 50+ years calling Christians and Hindus and (especially) Jews 'pigs', 'dogs', and 'monkeys'; if you hadn't destroyed hundreds of churches and temples and synagogues around the world, dozens of them with people in them; if you hadn't done the same to hundreds of mosques when the people in them were the wrong kind of Muslims; if you hadn't desecrated the Church of the Nativity; if you hadn't blown up the Bamiyan Buddhas; if you hadn't called tens of millions of women 'sluts' and 'whores' for not wearing bags over their heads, and acted on that slur by gang-raping hundreds of them; if you hadn't sawed off the heads of hundreds of other people for being the wrong religion or sect and then posted your snuff videos on the web - you, who complain about our movies! - for other Muslims to admire and emulate; if you hadn't blown up thousands of civilians all around the world in skyscrapers and pizza parlors and every kind of building in between; if you weren't openly fantasizing about finishing the job Hitler started; in short, if you were as inoffensive as the Amish and went off to practice your weird and reactionary religious beliefs on your own without bothering anyone else, then no one would ever have been tempted to make this pathetic movie, or those Danish cartoons, or any of the other things you constantly whine about, though you are guilty of provocations a hundred times worse.

Why do conservatives feel this lowlife is immune to the same laws as everyone else?

We don't. We believe he is subject to the same laws. But more importantly, we strenuously believe he is subject to the same protection of natural rights that you and I are, as codified in the Constitution.

You, and Allie, it would seem, feel he has somehow abrogated those rights for the sin of exercising them. Which is a typical response of those on the left, in my experience.

What I advocate is equal protection under the law. What you advocate is fascism.

Does the making of an anti-Islam movie trump the conditions of his parole?

Of course, you ninny. Especially since the condition of parole has nothing to do with with the exercise of his 1st Amendment rights.

garage mahal said... . But surely you do not believe five cops were sent in the middle of the night to see if he was using a computer, a violation of parole?

They were federal probation officers who questioned him. They might have wanted to know if he uploaded that movie,

I'd be very surprised if he previously had more that a monthly 30 minute meeting with is parole officer.

If this agency has enough excess manpower to send multiple agents and at least 5 Sheriffs out to bring somebody in at midnight, both operations are overstaffed. Unless there was political influence from on-high.

Actually, yes, Garage. All those things do not justify rousting him out at 1 o'clock in the morning with a full team of sheriff's deputies and using the media to paint a bull's eye on his back just because he has offended the State Dept. and embarrassed the White House.

According to reports elsewhere, Nakoula was "questioned" for half an hour and then let go. He walked away into the night with no one (ostensibly anyway) following after stating that no way was he going back to his house now.

Dr Weevil wrote:Dear Radical Muslims:Who the Hell are you to demand respect for your religion when you show no respect whatsoever for anyone else's? If you hadn't spent the last 50+ years calling Christians and Hindus and (especially) Jews 'pigs', 'dogs', and 'monkeys'; if you hadn't destroyed hundreds of churches and temples and synagogues around the world, dozens of them with people in them; if you hadn't done the same to hundreds of mosques when the people in them were the wrong kind of Muslims; if you hadn't desecrated the Church of the Nativity; if you hadn't blown up the Bamiyan Buddhas; if you hadn't called tens of millions of women 'sluts' and 'whores' for not wearing bags over their heads, and acted on that slur by gang-raping hundreds of them; if you hadn't sawed off the heads of hundreds of other people for being the wrong religion or sect and then posted your snuff videos on the web - you, who complain about our movies! - for other Muslims to admire and emulate; if you hadn't blown up thousands of civilians all around the world in skyscrapers and pizza parlors and every kind of building in between; if you weren't openly fantasizing about finishing the job Hitler started; in short, if you were as inoffensive as the Amish and went off to practice your weird and reactionary religious beliefs on your own without bothering anyone else, then no one would ever have been tempted to make this pathetic movie, or those Danish cartoons, or any of the other things you constantly whine about, though you are guilty of provocations a hundred times worse.

Garage Mahal wrote:Bank fraud felon, meth dealer, snitch, porn-maker, anti-Islam/Jewish/Mormon slanderer, liar. This is the guy the right wants to die on the hill for?

Has Garage not heard the phrase:I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

And what about Larry Flynt? HE too was a pornographer and a low life.Maybe he should have been drawn and quartered for suggesting that Falwell screwed his mother in an outhouse. At the very least, other Christians should have stormed the Hustler building and killed off the staff, and then dragged their bodies through the street. Right?

But I'm sure you're right. People like this don't deserve rights. Only people who behave themselves deserve rights.

Nobody stopped the people who made this movie from making it. Nobody is stopping the people who made this movie from talking about it. Nobody's free speech was trampled. If you admit to uploading a movie trailer that violates the terms of your parole you will probably get questioned about it though.

"Those who have been killed have families and people who love them and will now be devastated. Will they think this bad movie guy was yelling "fire" or engaging in free speech?"

I don't care what they think, frankly. He was still engaging in free speech. The opinions of those people do not have any relevance whatsoever. We don't require their approval to decide who is allowed to exercise their right of free speech.

As the "discussion" here shows, it's a total waste of time talking with a leftist. They have a different set of rules for those who aren't leftists and they will lie to try and prove their point. They have no concept of what freedom of speech is, other than how it applies to themselves...so why waste your time. Other than your own pleasure of exposing what hypocrites they are , basic reason and logic are lost on them.

Allie Oop wrote: Yes,.... but why is it OK to give Al Queda more fuel to fan the flames? How many more recruits do you think they've got now after the hyping of this stupid movie?"

Wouldnt saying Osama is dead but GM is alive not fanning the flames for Al Qaeda? You're exulting in the death of their leader? isnt the VP then responsible for fanning the flames of jihadis?You'll note that when they put up the Al Qaeda flag they said "We are All Osama" So maybe killing Osama bin Laden was the catalyst for some of this rage. Maybe we are to blame therefore for doing what you say we should be doing (i.e. Killing extremists that attack us).But isn't it kind of silly to try to assign blame to us when the side attacking our embassies goes on rampages over cartoons and You Tube videos? What WOULDN"T be yelling fire to these people? What wouldn't be a provocation?

YES, for the umpteenth time now, I am well aware that it could've been a well coordinated PLANNED attack, using the movie as an excuse to incite the Muslim masses to join them, who no doubt were alerted to the movie by Islamists.

It's not JUST the movie, but the movie was used to incite Muslims ripe for the taking. Do we know anything of substance about the movie maker? Who was he aligned with? I am betting it wasn't Jews or Coptic Christians.

"Those who have been killed have families and people who love them and will now be devastated. Will they think this bad movie guy was yelling "fire" or engaging in free speech?"

Why would they blame the guy who made a film and posted it on you Tube and not the people actually killing their loved ones? I mean, if merely posting a movie is enough to turn rational people into murderers, maybe they were never that rational to begin with. Also, it really strikes me as the height of insipid vacuity that somehow Allie Oop's daughter does not recognize the fact that she is dealing with extremists. That's the whole point!

Jr. Our VPs words didn't insult their PROPHET, did they? OF COURSE the movie shouldn't have driven the Muslim hordes to do what they did, it was a part of a planned attack as I have said several times now,using the movie to get Muslims around the world to be outraged and rationalize the attacks, in my opinion only.

Many Muslims are not rational about their Prophet, Christians and Jews don't kill those who insult their religiouns.

This guy knew what the outcome of his movie would be, as I said it was planned and this guy could very well be PART of that plan.

It's not JUST the movie, but the movie was used to incite Muslims ripe for the taking. Do we know anything of substance about the movie maker? Who was he aligned with? I am betting it wasn't Jews or Coptic Christians.

Before your idiotic and useless question is answered, perhaps you should first answer why such info is relevant?

Once again I struggle to understand why victims of violence get a say on other people's free speech rights.

The 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is how parole violations are handled in the real world, yes. I've known people on probation, a probation officer can piss test or inspect your home anytime day or night. Without any violations of probation.

Now Allie is correct in that localities have ordinances proscribing certain speech in public. You can't harass someone in public, you can't go yelling down the street like a madman. Those are 'public disturbance' laws. Those laws do not prevent you from exercising free speech as long as you aren't abridging other people's right to not be harassed or privacy.

Also the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is about what is reasonable behavior in response to speech. It's reasonable for people to panic if someone yells out "fire", "gunman" whatever. But it is not reasonable to riot in response to a video. So another FAIL by liberals.

We already know from past experience that Muslims may react negatively to such a movie, it's reasonable to assume they would once again react negatively and given the atmosphere in the ME, it was almost certain that no good would come from posting such a video. The guy KNEW what he was doing.

Allie - I'm in favor of posting a 1000 such videos on Youtube and let the world see the Muslims for what they are. You on the other hand, want to keep the lid on a boiling pot which will never work. Sooner or later it blows up in your face and you curse why didn't you lift the lid sooner. Pull the bandaid, it will only hurt for a moment!

Allie Oop wrote:Many Muslims are not rational about their Prophet, Christians and Jews don't kill those who insult their religiouns.

This guy knew what the outcome of his movie would be, as I said it was planned and this guy could very well be PART of that plan.

Why can't the prophet of Islam be insulted? Seriously. Islam routinely insults Jews as a gutter religion and Islamic Law describes jews as kafirs, less clean than dogs. Islam routinely screams "Death to America" and America is The Great Satan" routinely. The religion makes it a starting point that it is provocative towards other religions. If they can do it, why can't anyone else?

Allie is a racist. She is basically saying that Muslims have no impulse control and MUST riot in response to insults. She is saying that Christians and Jews have great impulse control and thus we are superior to Muslims.

The "shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre" argument assumes, perhaps rightly that Muslims cannot be held to ordinary standards of behavior and when confronted with something they dont approve of will commence mahem. Perhaps an announcement in the theatre of free pickled pigs feet or barbecue would have the same result. How would we know? But we suspect that we have to abide by their rules because we acknowledge they are primitive, bordering barbaric. What then to do with our sentimentalism? How best to scold them without having our heads lopped off?

In the new progressive sge provocative,edgy art is applauded and encouraged. A crucifix in a jug of piss? No problem. Christ with a hard on? Hysterical. These are the standards that the left has adopted except ewhen the offended fight back. So the limits of free speech are set by the Muslims who have no stomach for edgy. Or jews. Or lefties.

What to do but surrender? And keep quiet. So we dont offend. And who shall we silence first?

She is also saying that if our government feels grossly offended and embarrassed by something one of us has done, it can spotlight that person for others also offended and not much caring about minor legal niceties to take action against.

They kill our innocent people, we don't kill theirs. BUT no they should not get away with murder, we should get out of those countries, withdraw troops, our money, our embassies and leave them to their own devices, until they prove they have a civilized country. If they attack us, we should retaliate.

Their Prophet deserves no more protection from insult than do those of other religious prophets, but WE are civilized, we don't kill in retaliation to an insult of a religious figure.

How about the last hallf hour of Bill Mahers splendid movie mocking religion. Mostly Christianity. But the last last half hour might get his head removed if it were shown in the right places. Is he OK, Allie? Does he KNOW what he was doing?

Michael wrote:In the new progressive sge provocative,edgy art is applauded and encouraged. A crucifix in a jug of piss? No problem. Christ with a hard on? Hysterical. These are the standards that the left has adopted except ewhen the offended fight back. So the limits of free speech are set by the Muslims who have no stomach for edgy. Or jews. Or lefties.

And isn't the lesson that some should draw from this is that if you want to stop people insulting your religion by dunking a crucifix into a jar of piss that you should behead the artist?

Allie Opp. No, we dont have to be the policemen of the world. But when you surrender a corner to criminals do not be surprised if the new policeman teams up with the bad guys to create a more nightmarish world. Foreign policy is complicated for that reason.

AllieOop wrote:They kill our innocent people, we don't kill theirs. BUT no they should not get away with murder, we should get out of those countries, withdraw troops, our money, our embassies and leave them to their own devices, until they prove they have a civilized country. If they attack us, we should retaliate.

Even in Egypt, not every one responds to an insult to their religion with murder. Wasn't, until Obama fucked it up by telling Mubarak to resign and backing the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt considered one of the more moderate muslim countries? Your stance not only is anti freedom of speech it's anti reforming of Islam. Because who determines the face of Islam, those who would storm an embassy or those who dont at the slightest provocation?

Jr.If you think that we in the West can "reform" the face of Islam, you are living in an alternate reality. The only ones who have a sliver of a chance of reforming their own religion is Muslims themselves.

Seems to me the topic of this post was about defense -- you know, did the Obama administration provide adequate security at our embassies/consulates in the Middle East on the 11th anniversary of September 11. And yet most of you have let Allie and others of her/his/its ilk turn this into a discussion of the guy who made the movie. Dumb.

Dami, what a fool you are if you think those questions won't be asked, or haven't already. If you take the movie maker's word at face value you are quite dim.

You still aren't answering WHY his motivations are relevant.

Let's say he did it for the worst possible reason. He is still quite allowed to do so. He did, literally, nothing wrong.

If he did it to try and incite a religious war, there is still nothing at all wrong with that.

We already know from past experience that Muslims may react negatively to such a movie, it's reasonable to assume they would once again react negatively and given the atmosphere in the ME, it was almost certain that no good would come from posting such a video. The guy KNEW what he was doing.

So. Fucking. What?

Again, barbarians in a hellhole don't get veto rights over our rights. Perhaps we should just have Jews and Christians riot and ransack their embassies. Their propaganda is several measures more offensive --- and have been for decades.

If you think that we in the West can "reform" the face of Islam, you are living in an alternate reality. The only ones who have a sliver of a chance of reforming their own religion is Muslims themselves.

Then desperately avoiding the possibility of offending them is an epic waste of our time and energies.

My God, do you think that sinking to their level will solve ANYTHING? It will only prove we are no better than them.

Telling them to fuck off over their "indignation over this 'insult'" and a President who, just once, asks "Isn't acting like petulant children whenever somebody offends you worse for your faith than a movie nobody has seen?"

I don't think Nakoula was connected with any big plot. His partner, Klein, answered the door of his home waving a gun and dressed in shorts. They're just a little off.

I know some Copts who escaped (and that's the right word) from Egypt and they operate at DefCon at all times 4 for any trivial problem, the result IMO of living as a persecuted minority in Egypt for years.

So you think the Nazi's where the guys the ACLU wanted to die on the hill for in Skokie? How DENSE you you have to be to know this isn't about a person?

Allie seems to think nothing would have happened on 9/11 without that movie. There would have been another excuse. And if we suppressed that one, there would have been another. Why do you insist on granting a hecklers veto to whatever they decide they don't like? Eventually, most will understand this was motivated by our fight against al-qaeda, not some stupid movie. I just think its astounding the mental gymnastics some put themselves thru to justify a 180 degree conclusion from what they would think if all circumstances were the same but under a (R) administration.

Furious, it's disingenuous at best to say this has anything to do with enforcing Sharia Law. It's about yelling "fire"in a crowded theater.

Those who have been killed have families and people who love them and will now be devastated. Will they think this bad movie guy was yelling "fire" or engaging in free speech?

But why is making a movie about Mohammad more yelling fire in a crowded theater than saying were glad OBL is dead? Trying to read the mind of a jihadist and trying to determine what particular speech image or sound or combination is a fools game, and ultimately irrelevant. It was a mob that rioted, but a mob is made up of individuals and each person thinks independently. What if one of them when asked said "I rioted because I was carrying on the work of OBL and found bidens words to be hateful." would the argument be that we can't say bad things about OBL lest we set off jihadis?

The way our government is reacting is as if it's Muslims across the board.

If Obama didn't believe in his heart of hearts that it was "Muslims across the board" would our policy be what it is? Would we (or you) be upset about someone yelling "fire" in a crowded theater if the "crowd" was not the issue?

That "crowd" is "Muslims across the board." You don't change policy or demand everyone behave differently for the odd Islamist extremist who is going to riot no matter what.

Also, the green on blue killing in Afghanistan? We haven't done anything about that and it's been going on for a while. Is Obama just sort of hoping it eases off on it's own?

What is true? It's true that an Afghan can die a "hero" killing American soldiers and officers deep within our Afghan facilities... and there will be no repercussions.

This guy was trying to incite a uptick in violence, if not start a holy war. I don't believe he is a Coptic Christian or a Jew, not for one second, perhaps its a good idea to question him and what his motives were and who his funders really were.

Allie, are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?

"This guy was trying to incite a uptick in violence, if not start a holy war."

You know this, how?

There are any number of things his guy *may have* been trying to do, including but not limited to, using other people's dislike of Islam to make a lot of money.

In which case, it matters only to his investors that the movie sucked.

Or maybe what he was *trying* to do was warn people that there was a fire in the theater. That's entirely possible, too. Crack spends a great deal of time and effort trying to warn *us* about fires in the theater.

If you really think it's about the movie in any non-trivial amount, as in *at all*, how worried are you about what will happen when the Bin Laden movie is released?

Allie: We already know from past experience that Muslims may react negatively to...one other thing...

...Muslims outside the Ummah living under anything other than Shari'a law -- it is not to be borne. Our friends in Europe, with much larger and more unassimilable Muslim minorities, are learning this to their regret.

we should get out of those countries, withdraw troops, our money, our embassies and leave them to their own devices...

Allie: I posted this the other day. This woman is definitely trying to be provocative, though not to start a war in the Middle East but to affirm her right to freedom of speech and her utter loathing for Islam.

What say you?-------------------------Here's Ann Barnhardt doing the job Obama won't do -- standing up for American freedom.

She made a youtube of herself burning the Koran, bookmarked with strips of bacon no less. She did this April, 2011. In light of recent events she posted this declaration with links to her video.

I demand to be arrested for blasphemy. Now.

The Obama regime is going after the people who made the cheesy mohammed movie that the musloids are blaming the riots on. They are "suggesting" that YouTube "review" the content of the clip of the movie they have posted, and are also now looking to jail one of the filmmakers. In addition, the Obama propaganda arm operating as the L.A. Times has posted pictures and explicit location descriptions of the home of one of the filmmakers, clearly an effort to intimidate the filmmakers and to pass tactical intel to the muslim brotherhood - which is why you always publicize your personal info right off the bat like I did. In doing so you claim a massive tactical advantage and utterly deprive the enemy of his MAIN WEAPON, which is intimidation and fear.

Ladies and gentlemen, what you are witnessing is the establishment of the Sharia, specifically "islamic blasphemy" laws, right here in what used to be called the United States of America.

Well, I have a little something to say about all of this.

I have done what many consider to be the most hard-core, serious koran burning to date. I bookmarked the filthy damn thing with strips of raw bacon, and then I burned the satanic screed page by page after reading the demonic filth therein contained.

What many of you may not know is that very soon after my koran burning went viral, a group of Coptic Christians in Egypt translated it - every word - subtitled it in Arabic, and then posted that version on YouTube. How humbling. Please understand that there is a very good chance that some of the Copts involved in that effort have since been killed in the Christian genocide that has been raging in Egypt, and all throughout the musloid-infected world since early 2011.

Allie: Your welcome to think so, and to express it, but what I'm looking for is your position on free speech.

I imagine you dislike what Ann Barnhardt has done. You may even believe it endangers your daughter. Nonetheless, Barnhardt is exercising her right to freedom of speech as guaranteed in the US Constitution.

Should she be allowed to do so, even though Muslims could respond with rioting, violence and killing?

If you accept what Ann Barnhardt has done as freedom of speech, why not Nakoula Basseley Nakoula?

I consider Ann Barnhardt a brave, patriotic woman and I support her act.

AllieOop,In this thread:http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/09/by-sending-literally-brownshirted.html

You blamed the filmmaker and/or his crappy movie for the deaths, and/or inciting violence.

It takes a certain sort of stupid evil to use a lie to accuse someone else of a lie.

Evil because you are pretending innocence in a deliberate deception.

Stupid because it is so easily revealed.

#1:http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/09/by-sending-literally-brownshirted.html?showComment=1347764404646#c5470865885811597578Crappy movie guy is a hero to the right! Freedom of his speech is worth the 6 dead bodies, at the embassies and Camp Leatherneck!! Never mind that he may be in on a plot to incite the Islamic nuts?

#2:http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/09/by-sending-literally-brownshirted.html?showComment=1347765150103#c5248236166634906066Oh so sorry Yashu, did I smear your hero, bad movie guy? His free speech and the blood of innocents is watering the Tree of Liberty, huh?

#3:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/09/by-sending-literally-brownshirted.html?showComment=1347765994406#c2859450712112682407You are screaming about his freedom of speech, he is yelling " fire", people have been trampled and are now dead.

So when AllieOop claims someone is lying, it is a safe bet she is the liar. When she demands proof she said something, she should provide proof she didn't say something.